So, Brown’s resigned his Labour Leader post; rumours abound about a Con-Lib deal and a PM has formally resigned; tempers are flared; fuses are short; everyone in the country (it seems) is blaming anyone they can; and I’m a good number of days late in writing anything about a British Election that – frankly – bored me silly until the closing weeks, but now has me pretty intrigued. All at the time of writing, of course.

I may as well be honest and state from the outset that party and statewide politics bore and irritate me. It’s not something I support and in my own little idealist way can’t until the time comes that we can cast off those shackles towards real freedom. But, whatever protestations I may have, it’s the system I find myself under, and as such find I need to be realistic about it. Which probably explains my interest.

Anyway, another thing I should get out of the way is which way I voted which, in honesty, is that I voted for this. A hung parliament. And, much to my own surprise, one that would result in a Con-Lib coalition. Why? Because I honestly believe that of all the myriad (ok, four) possibilities being mooted about the place, that is the only combination that could actually introduce any real (and in my view, necessary) changes to the country that most people I think would agree needs to happen, current economic climate or no.
On the topic of Manifestos, I can admit that the only one I read in full was the Liberal Democrat one, and I spent some time scanning the Tory manifesto for points I agreed / disagreed with, and similarly scanned the key Labour points (as I saw them).
So, whether its agreed with or not, I feel I’ve done my bit to make the decision I wanted to make, and made it based on choosing the party I disagreed with least at a Manifesto and personality level. And so its made. So it remains to be seen what the parties finally decide.

A bunch of things throughout the campaign, and after have annoyed me from all sides, so I thought I’d choose a few as I remember them:

ConLib / LabLib / Rainbow Squabblings

The whole episode of the last few days seems to have been dominated by the extremes on both sides (and may yet still be decided from them). Hardline Liberal Democrats appalled to be dealing with the Conservatives, and clinging desperately to their failed notion that New Labour are really as “Lefty” a party as they like to think they are; Tories disgusted to be seen to be “lowering” themselves to dealing with 3rd place when “they got more votes anyway” (irony, anybody?); and Labour supporters uncertain over what they want more – to see Gordon Brown away from the leadership or to keep themselves in power. All of which, frankly, are ridiculous and missing the point completely.
Lab-Lib would have been a mistake, whichever way you cut it. At a time when there’s a genuine opportunity for change, having two parties align that have ‘historic’ ties amongst back-benchers and party members would have inevitably been frail and wouldn’t have lasted (by my reckoning) more than 2 years. Similarly with a “Rainbow” coalition, although my money’s on that having lasted even less time. As it is, I’d be fairly confident that a ConLib agreement could be mutually beneficial, and potentially provide the right checks and balances between two quite different parties and policies. I jsut hope the Lib Dems can approve the deal by more than 75% to allow Clegg to pursue it, then let everyone see what the details are and what we think can happen. As many seats as they do have, I don’t think the Tories can last if they’re made to go it alone.

Clegg’s Pimping Himself Out and LibDems Not Doing as Well as People Thought

Two myths, right there, if you ask me. Firstly, to the actual election results, which near enough tied in with my expectations (alright, I didn’t expect the LibDems to actually lose seats, but I didn’t expect them to gain any). yet there was such a public sense of defeatism from those people who foolishly thought their LibDem votes were going to result in a landslide. It was never going to happen. And the reason it would never happen is for exactly the reasons the party had espoused beforehand – electoral reform. So why be surprised?
And secondly, the recent frustrated notion that Clegg has been pimping himself out to any party in an eager attempt to get power. Two issues with this: 1) What’s the problem? He’s a politician. He can’t, really, ever achieve anything noteworthy if he stays in opposition (which, realisitically, is what the LibDems risk facing if they don’t take the opportunity now while it presents itself) and (2) Why is it “pimping yourself out” to go and hear both possible deals that are on the table, and making your decision accordingly. I’ve said it already earlier today, but I’d be many times more disappointed in anyone who clung desperately to the first offer they received rather than taking their time and weighing up the choices. I even heard one person on the radio today saying they were disgusted with Clegg and that they only voted LibDem to get Labour out… well… that comes at a risk doesn’t it? And that risk is that you’ll,  most likely, get Tory, in some incarnation. Deal with it. And stop being silly.

Unlock Democracy and Proportional Representation

A massive sticking pointing for the LibDems (and it remains to be seen if it will get passed them, and in what form), but the news all week has been obsessed with this question of PR, and what it means. Unlock Democracy, as much as I can applaud them for the speed with which  they put together their protests. And, I agree, First Past the Post is a ridiculous system and one that does need to be changed. However, as with so many protesters, I can’t agree that their expected timescale is correct, let alone feasible. Expecting a referendum, and for that to then be enacted within a year – in a coalition government (a coalition, incidentally, that whichever way it was formed, would have resulted in disagreements in exactly how far to go with PR) – is optimistic, to say the least. Push for it once the coalition’s in place. And support the coalition with the most contrasting views – its the better way to ultimately get the more dramatic changes you want.
I remain quietly optimistic that PR will happen, but it won’t happen if we don’t have  strong coalition government. I never thought I’d say it, but I think Con-Lib is the strongest coalition we can get at this time, and also the one most susceptible to enacting change.

Clegg’s “Two Horse Race” Moment…

… surprised me. Whilst I’m all in favour of being optimistic, this moment struck me as a public show of unmerited over-confidence that, frankly, wasn’t needed. I’m not saying I think they would have done better had he not come out and said this, but I’m sure it didn’t help sway those who were on the edge of deciding which way to go.

LibDem’s “Losing”

A big deal seemed to be made of the LibDems losing seats, both on the public’s part, and their own. I still can’t help feeling this is misplaced. They gained votes. They gained quite a few votes. Yet they lost seats. Is that not, in essence, what PR aims to resolve? If anything it adds fuel to the fire that electoral reform is needed and confirms one of their strongest policies and arguments right the way through.

Tories “Winning”

Not a right lot to say on this except it goes back to arguments about first past the post. This was sadly inevitable, so deal with it. In honesty, I expected them to win outright by a very slim margin, which would have been a much worse situation than we now find ourselves in. Equally, even with the Coalition, its no surprise that Cameron took the PM spot (seems justified). Until late last night I remained optimistic that balance could be restored and Osborne would be replaced as Chancellor by Cable, but it seems that hasn’t happened, and won’t happen this time round. Those were really the only two posts that interests me significantly at this time. Clegg as Deputy could be interesting, guess we’ll see what happens.

Brown as “Unelected PM” Possibility

This kept coming up again and again, especially when the LibDems first said they were going back to talk to Labour. Unfounded fear-mongering at its best. We don’t elect Prime Ministers. Parties elect their leaders, and we elect Parties. Parties decide policies (naturally, a strong party leader can influence those policies). It really is that simple. Stop whining.

So there’s a few, I’m sure there are more, and I’ll probably add them later. But for now, I’m going to go back to waiting to see what the final results are, and what the LibDems side on.

EDIT 1: So, Cameron’s Prime Minister. And the LibDems – to my surprise – have accepted the terms offered in a Coalition. It will be interesting to see what the terms are. Can’t say I’m overwhelmingly pleased with Osborne as Chancellor, but I guess it was to be expected.

My first impressions of the whole affair (including the ‘protests’)? The country is overrun by single-minded idiots. Sorry, but there we go. I’ll come to why shortly.

As for where I stand on politics, I’m largely neutral. I have no sense of support for any party (major or minor) and long for the day the ’state’ is little more than a thing of the past. I’m also realistic and doubt strongly that will happen in my life time, so I feel I can get involved in little arguments like this. On top of this, I despise being encouraged to vote for a ‘major’ party in order to stand against the BNP – if no-one can give me a convincing reason to vote _for_ them, I won’t. I strongly believe that whilst the argument has limited merit as to what it hopes to achieve, it will never fix the fundamental problem, and as such will just prolong its symptoms from rearing their head again.

Anyway, moving swiftly on to some of the arguments against the BBC playing host to Nick Griffin this evening:

• I don’t want my license-fee being spent on the BNP
  Short answer: tough shit.
  I don’t like _my_ license-fee being spent on far worse and (completely) uninformative programming, such as Eastenders or Stictly Come Dancing, but I’d rather pay it and not watch those shows if it means it can also be spent on pressing political programmes (yes, such as Question Time), or exceptional documentaries (a la Blue Planet, Life, Planet Earth). As it is, I’m prepared to ignore the shit in order to receive the good. If you don’t feel you’re getting that value for money, don’t pay it, and go do something more pro-active, like reading. Either way, don’t bitch about it. Because it’s a baseless argument.
• The BBC has a moral obligation to not host the BNP
  I’m not so sure on the actual truth of this one, nor the morality of it either way. I guess I would come down on the side of, ‘Surely it is more amoral to pretend the voice in the wilderness doesn’t exist (and so let it fester unseen) than it is to give that voice the same chance the others get’. If you’re so concerned that you will be that easily swayed by the ramblings of such a party, I suggest suicide. Before you kill us all.
  If you don’t believe you’re that easily swayed and that the views and propaganda of the BNP are built on a pack of lies then you have nothing to fear. They will embarass themselves in their own time. Either way, face facts: Just because you can’t see / hear them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If you would rather force them underground and hope that will solve the problem, I encourage you to think harder.
• Nick Griffin as holocaust-denier
  This seems to get brought up every time someone mentions Nick Griffin and the BNP. And whilst I can understand why (citing an easy example as to why this man’s a moron), it carries no real weight in the sense of the argument. I believe the Holocaust occured. And I believe that on the balance of the facts I have seen and studied. In just the same way that I do not believe in a god, based on the facts and evidence I have looked at. Just because I have friends who do believe doesn’t mean I shouldn’t discuss and debate such issues with them ultimately in the pursuit of knowledge.
  Is he a holocaust-denier? Then good for him. Just means he needs to go back and actually digest the facts. Nothing more for me to worry about except that he’s an idiot. Whilst it’s a very good reason he should not be in politics, it does not change the fact that he is and as such deserves the same chance to talk as we would give any other politician.
• Allowing him on Question Time provides a valid platform to spout their racist diatribe
  No. It gives him a valid platform to partake in a public discussion, fielding questions both from the public and his opposition. This is not a BNP Political Rally being broadcast by the BBC, it’s a political debate. And in many ways I would like to think the questions don’t become just a bashing of BNP policies, because that’s not what the debate is about. And if that does happen (as I fear it inevitably will) then the situation has been changed by the very people claiming to protest it. And that gives Griffin every opportunity to use it to his advantage.
  Treat him like any other politician in the way you ask your questions and respond to his answers and he will be exposed as the flawed individual he is. If you try and attack BNP policies and him explicitly, it will be easily manipulated to make you look the fool, and garner further support. Any shouting, pointing person can be very easily made to look like the mad man. So don’t do it to yourself. Let them do it to themselves.
• He’ll manipulate it to appeal to a broad audience  to garner support (disguising the more sensitive views they may stand for)
  See above, largely. But moreover, I disagree in terms of scale. Pissy little protests incorporating such views as listed above do far, far more for the extremist politician in their ability to manipulate that reaction to their own advantage. It’s already happened countless times (MEP Elections, the ‘Egging’ incident, etc.). And here’s the thing – it doesn’t matter if what he responds with is lies (to the general public), he’s still coming across as far more in control of the situation than you will in your hate-filled moments of shouting and demonstration. And that is what’s dangerous.

Well, I wrote a bit more then than I wanted, and it’s nearly time to actually see how it did turn out. I hope at least some of that is coherent, if a bit ranting. I’ll be interested to see what the reaction is to the broadcast in the end.

*sigh* Time to get a pot of tea ready me-thinks.

As for the book though, despite the above paragraph, it’s a very interesting read. Effectively a run-down of Anarchism and ‘key’ anarchists throughout the centuries, culminating in their role and defeat into obscurity in Spain in the mid-to-late 1930’s. It covers characters such as Kropotkin, Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta and Goldman, to name but a few, and also spends a good portion of its time explaining and exploring the somewhat strange relationship between the various anarchists and the communists as were springing up around the time of the First International.

All in all then, lots of things I had – at best – only the slightest of grips on, and it certainly paved the way to making further reading into the different areas more appealing.

It flows well, it’s well written, and spans the periods of time chronologically (as you may expect), often recalling characters that had been introduced earlier on and how most of the main figures knew each other, personally or otherwise,  as well as fairly carefully analyzing some of the failure points and successes at various times in the movement.

One of the things that was perhaps most pleasing about it as a read was the seeming lack of bias on behalf of Joll. As ever with books surrounding the political arena, I’m always a bit wary that the author will be approaching the subject from one side or the other, which usually comes across in the writing and can get a bit tedious. So it was nice to not have that to contend with!

Don’t know if I’d go as far as to recommend this to anyone, but if anarchy / history of political thoughts is your ‘bag’, then you could do worse.